The field of organizational justice continues to be marked by several important research questions, including the size of relationships among justice dimensions, the relative importance of different justice criteria, and the unique effects of justice dimensions on key outcomes. To address such questions, the authors conducted a meta-analytic review of 183 justice studies. The results suggest that although different justice dimensions are moderately to highly related, they contribute incremental variance explained in fairness perceptions. The results also illustrate the overall and unique relationships among distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice and several organizational outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, evaluation of authority, organizational citizenship behavior, withdrawal, performance). These findings are reviewed in terms of their implications for future research on organizational justice.

We enhance the theoretical precision of cultural intelligence (CQ: capability to function effectively in culturally diverse settings) by developing and testing a model that posits differential relationships between the four CQ dimensions (metacognitive, cognitive, motivational and behavioural) and three intercultural effectiveness outcomes (cultural judgment and decision making, cultural adaptation and task performance in culturally diverse settings). Before testing the model, we describe development and cross‐validation (N = 1,360) of the multidimensional cultural intelligence scale (CQS) across samples, time and country. We then describe three substantive studies (N = 794) in field and educational development settings across two national contexts, the USA and Singapore. The results demonstrate a consistent pattern of relationships where metacognitive CQ and cognitive CQ predicted cultural judgment and decision making; motivational CQ and behavioural CQ predicted cultural adaptation; and metacognitive CQ and behavioural CQ predicted task performance. We discuss theoretical and practical implications of our model and findings.

Although international assignments are recognized as important mechanisms for developing global leaders in organizations, existing research has focused primarily on leaders' performance during international assignments, rather than on the developmental outcomes gained from such assignments. We integrate research on experiential learning and cultural intelligence to propose a process model that focuses on how leaders translate their international work assignment experiences into learning outcomes critical for global leadership development. Our model positions cultural intelligence as a moderator that enhances the likelihood that individuals on international assignments will actively engage in the four stages of experiential learning (experience, reflect, conceptualize, experiment), which in turn leads to global leadership self-efficacy, ethnorelative attitudes toward other cultures, accurate mental models of leadership across cultures, and flexibility of leadership styles. Our model has major implications for the selection and training of individuals, as well as organizational practices related to international job assignments from a developmental perspective.

No abstract

The trait theory of leadership is advanced by a joint investigation of the mediating role of (a) leadership self-efficacy (LSE = leader's perceived capabilities to perform leader roles) in linking neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness with leader effectiveness and (b) the moderating role of job demands and job autonomy in influencing the mediation. Using K. J. Preacher, D. D. Rucker, and A. F. Hayes' (2007) moderated mediation framework, the authors tested the model (over a 2-year period) with matched data from 394 military leaders and their supervisors. Results showed that LSE mediated the relationships for neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness with leader effectiveness. Moderated mediation analyses further revealed that LSE mediated the relationships for (a) all 3 personality variables for only those leaders with low job demands; (b) neuroticism and conscientiousness for only those leaders with high job autonomy; and (c) extraversion, regardless of a leader's level of job autonomy. Results underscore the importance of accounting for leaders' situational contexts when examining the relationships between personality, LSE, and effectiveness.